Big Government I Strongly Believe In...

From Craig Crawford:
"Finally, Congress might do something worthwhile: Turn the volume down on TV commercials.

Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, a California Democrat, has drafted a bill aimed at preventing TV ads from playing noticeably louder than the programs they sponsor.

...As much as I'd like to see other things done on Capitol Hill, this would be a triumph. How annoying it is to dive for the remote when commercials come on. Since Congress apparently cannot do anything more significant for us, I'll take it.

Right now, the government doesn't have much say in the volume of TV ads. It's been getting complaints ever since televisions began proliferating in the 1950s. But the FCC concluded in 1984 there was no fair way to write regulations controlling the "apparent loudness" of commercials.

Go for it, Rep. Eshoo! Small a matter as it might be, this could be the most effective move by Congress in decades"

The Late Jody Powell

TW: Jimmy Carter's former press secretary and key aide Jody Powell passed away yesterday of a heart attack. Carter had some mediocre staff but I always liked Powell as a straight shooter and his reputation held up better than many from the Carter years. Powell (is standing on the right) for those not quite as wonky as me. But do you recognize the guy sitting in front of Powell? I posted a similar photo last fall. Chris Matthews was a speechwriter for Carter along with the guy sitting on the left who is Hendrik Hertzberg now an editor at the New Yorker.

Craig Crawford related a Powell story about the infamous "Jimmy Carter attacked by a rabbit" case on his blog and it goes to show media craziness is not a brand new phenomenon:

From Powell's autobiography-
"It began late one afternoon in the spring of 1979. The President was sitting with a few of us on the Truman Balcony. He had recently returned from a visit to Plains, and we were talking about homefolks and how the quail were nesting and similar matters of international import. Suddenly, for no apparent reason -- he was drinking lemonade, as I recall -- the President volunteered the information that while fishing in a pond on his farm he had sighted a large animal swimming toward him. Upon closer inspection, the animal turned out to be a rabbit. Not one of your cutesy, Easter Bunny-type rabbits, but one of those big splay-footed things that we called swamp rabbits when I was growing up. The animal was clearly in distress, or perhaps berserk. The President confessed to having had limited experience with enraged rabbits. He was unable to reach a definite conclusion about its state of mind. What was obvious, however, was that this large, wet animal, making strange hissing noises and gnashing its teeth, was intent upon climbing into the Presidential boat."

Apparently, the president shooed the offending rabbit away with his paddle. The story would have died of natural cases, had Powell not made the mistake of passing it along to a reporter, Brooks Jackson of CNN. Still, the reporter wrote the story in a lighthearted fashion. Powell wrongly thought it would be received as a "mildly amusing incident" and laughed it off.

More Powell:
"We were soon corrected. The Washington Post, exercising the news judgment that we in the White House had come to appreciate so keenly, headed the piece 'President Attacked by Rabbit' and ran it on the front page. The more cautious New York Times boxed it on page A-12. That night, all three networks found time to report the amazing incident. But that was just the beginning. It was a nightmare. The story ran for more than a week. The President was repeatedly asked to explain his behavior at town hall meetings, press conferences, and meetings with editors. There was talk of a suit under the Freedom of Information Act to force release of the picture showing the President, paddle and rabbit in close proximity. Shortly after the Reagan administration took office, they stumbled upon a copy of the picture -- apparently while searching for a foreign policy -- and reopened the old wounds by releasing it to the press."

It Takes Two Or In This Case About Six To Tango

TW: Crawford makes a point that others have as well. The U.S. can say and do much to advance Middle East peace but at the end of the day enlightened leaders throughout the region must extend their own hands, take their own risks, and make their own sacrifices if peace/improved stability is to be realized.

Those with an interest in continuing instability and war have the easy job (how hard is it to bomb something or kill someone versus providing security and economic opportunity?). But for the first time in a while the onus is being placed more squarely upon the local players rather than an alleged hegemon (i.e. the U.S.) who regardless of its intentions has become a punching bag upon which all sides can blame their weaknesses and failures.

What will the locals do if the opportunity? What will the free-riders (i.e. Europeans, Chinese) who enjoy playing the rich, concerned uncle (i.e. expressing sympathy for all sides while selling as much as they possibly can to everyone) do?

From Craig Crawford at
"Ok, so Barack Obama threw down the gauntlet with an exceedingly blunt speech in Cairo that, while not a policy address in diplomatic terms, provided a road map for ending hostilities between Jewish and Arab interests.

If the President's direct words, holding both sides accountable for progress, are not soon echoed by mainstream Israeli and Muslim leaders then the world shall know that they are not now and perhaps shall never be true agents for peace.

If electing a Christian with Muslim and African heritage, who has repeatedly stood firm for the preservation of Israel's Jewish state, is not enough to promote an eventual end to this ridiculous conflict then what more can the American people do? We've tried everything, from Jimmy Carter's conciliations to George W. Bush's war mongering. This presidency could be your last chance, folks, or you're on your own.

Obama spoke essential truths on Thursday. He said things that neither side dares to say in public -- namely, that Arabs privately accept Israel's right to exist, and that Israelis privately acknowledge the inevitability of a Palestinian state.

"It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true." -- President Barack Obama
It is time for each side to step up and lead their peoples to the place that Obama described. If they don't, we can rightly conclude that neither side is worthy of American support."

Obama In Cairo

James Baker (fmr. Sec. of State and WH Chief of Staff for Reagan) before Obama's Cairo speech on how one pushes the ball up the hill in the Middle East:
"Well, you get there by doing what the president is doing. Show these people that we value the relationship that has existed formany years between their countries and our country. Pay them attention,which he is certainly doing. Meet with them, listen to their concerns. And explain to them the importance of U.S. policy goals. That's a way you get there. And I think it's very healthy that he is doing this."

From Craig Crawford after the speech:
"...It was a moment that made good on the promise of this man to begin the process of transforming relations and undermining terrorists.

"You have the ability to reimagine the world," Obama to young Muslims at Cairo University.

For the first time since Jimmy Carter's Camp David accords we have a president with the skills, understanding and commitment to make peace in a region that has bedeviled the world for generations. Carter's 1978 brokering of a deal between Egypt and Israel to recognize each other and pursue peace still stands as the only lasting agreement of its kind since those days.

Obama's phenomenal speech gracefully shifted from historical tensions to current conflicts between Muslim nations and the western world. Without taking sides he was not shy about noting the wrongdoing of extremists on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for instance.
Perhaps his most controversial words at home will turn out to be calling Afghanistan a war of necessity, while labeling Iraq a "war of choice." Although Obama has said such things before, his political foes will probably seize upon his decision to say it on foreign soil.

But acknowledging that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake -- or at least seeming to say so -- will probably do more to impress the Muslim world than just about anything else in this great speech."

From Economist:
"...Mr Obama didn't shy away from the hard questions; indeed he said early and clearly that one speech wasn't going to change much, and that the problems are severe. More than anything, he was frank. Whether talking about a need for an Israeli settlement freeze, reminding the audience that America overthrew Iran's government in 1953, or taking on the Arab conspiracy theories about 9/11, he didn't shy away from the hard topics. The question isn't whether we heard anything new—nobody expected that. The speech was, in my view, honest. That, in itself, is significant for a Muslim audience too used to hearing one thing and seeing another.

...Mr Obama's speech in Cairo closed with a standing ovation, a stunning sight in itself. The knee-jerk reaction of too many Americans is to recoil at the notion of foreigners cheering an American president, as if unpopularity abroad was a sign of virile vigor. This is a new and ugly strain in conservatism. The first sentence of the first official document of the United States paid tribute to "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind". Mr Obama took that seriously today."

Souter a Justice From a Different Age

TW: Today will be Justice Souter day, he came into the Court enigmatic and leaves enigmatic. Appointed by George H.W. Bush, he has ended up a Court moderate far more criticised by those to the right than the left. Instead of a doctrinaire Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts type, Souter has presided as a moderate with slightly left of center positions. In a more progressive Court era Souter would have been regarded as a slightly right of center type, which speaks to how far right the Court has evolved in the era of Reagan/Bush.

A David Souter like person will likely not be appointed again soon. Today's turbo-charged confirmation process will ensure the new justice is less mysterious and more doctrinaire. Our Supreme Court nomination process is broken (by the mutual efforts of the left and right). Moderation and legal acuity are passe. Partisanship and rigidity are in. Another variable now enshrined by the Republicans is appointing the youngest possible justice, here is to hoping Obama at least follows that new tradition.

From Craig Crawford at Congressional Quarterly:
"...I am reminded of those days in 1990...I found Souter to be a remarkably evenhanded and surprisingly pragmatic judicial pick in an era when ideologues thought they ruled the roost.

Sure enough, Souter proved to be something of a liberal justice, at least in the context of the rightward leaning court. To his credit, he made no effort to "court" conservatives when seeking Senate confirmation. And further to his credit, the reclusive Souter once told me that, while Washington is a "horrible city" full of "despicable people," it is the "best place in the world" to do the "most good for all." Those words guide me still, and keep me on the case in this miserable town.

...You could see Souter's leftward bent coming in his 1990 Senate hearing. In particular, I recall his clever and witty responses during a testy back-and-forth with Iowa Republican Charles Grassley, who became quite frustrated with Souter's refusal to toe the conservative line. Souter simply would not provide assurances that he would narrowly interpret individual rights under the Constitution.

"As your testimony hit me on Friday, it seemed to me more the terminology likely to come from a judicial activist," Grassley said, inviting the nominee to "rephrase it in favor of something better."

Souter smiled and said, "I think you're giving me a hint, Senator."

The former New Hampshire judge offered no solace to Grassley; instead he further defended the power of courts to define unwritten rights. He cited the example of Brown vs. Board of Education, the 1954 ruling that outlawed racially segregated schools.

"If you simply read the text of the Constitution and somebody said, 'Where does it refer to school desegregation?' - of course you would not have found anything," Souter said. "But I think that clearly implicit in the text of the Constitution itself was the proper basis for the court's exercise of its jurisdiction."

Grassley then asked Souter to name any case in the court's history where "improper rights were created." The nominee mentioned none.

"Well then, let me see if I can help you where you might think the court improperly acted," Grassley said. He cited rulings during the tenure of Chief Justice Earl Warren, despised by conservatives for provoking decisions during the 1960s that aggressively expanded the rights of criminal suspects.

Souter did not agree that the Warren Court rulings went too far, describing them as a "pragmatic implementation" of the Bill of Rights.

Further aggravating conservatives, Souter praised the Warren Court rulings for teaching law enforcement officers how to protect the rights of suspects.

"We have learned to live with those rulings and we live with them pretty well today," Souter said.

One of Souter's statements during his Senate grilling has always stuck with me. Pressed for his views on individual rights, Souter offered a gem of wisdom that struck me as a delightful distillation of what our country is all about: "I'd rather have a right to do something than a right to stop someone else."

An Early Report Card

TW: Seems fair but as he says time will tell.

From Craig "Curmudgeon" Crawford:
I give President Barack Obama a passing grade for his first 50 days. But then, I'm usually an easy grader in the first quarter of a first term. I mean, really, a pass-fail test is all that should be applied when less than two months on the job. Let's at least wait until summer vacation to hand out actual grades.

Faced with an imposing range of challenges, from a collapsing economy to nuclear missile testing in North Korea, the President seems to be a good listener (a huge plus, folks, no matter what you say), a reasoning decider (now that is a change, you must admit) and, above all, he's willing to acknowledge mistakes and move on without crybaby attacks on his attackers.

There are always going to be those who want to declare a form of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome in the early days of an administration they don't like. That's especially true for an opposing party angling toward the next congressional election and needing to boost the negative ratings for a President who remains very popular despite the incoming flak.

Compared to the first days of many recent presidents, I say Obama is well ahead of the curve."

The Straw Man Strategies Through Time

TW: Certainly we have all had fun with the Rushster this week. Crawford makes the salient point that the strawman treatment is nothing new in politics. He does not say but could that it has a very effective pedigree. Metaphors can be quite powerful.

Will We Trust the White House Again?

TW: "Curmudgeon" Crawford hits a salient point. W. Bush lost the trust of the majority of the American public a long time ago. This has been a problem and made governing effectively essentially impossible. Crawford posits that perhaps Bush never really trusted the American public himself. When one sees Obama communicating already at a level far different than Bush mutual trust may be one key component of the dialogue.

From Crawford at CQ:
"When presidents do not trust the public to handle the truth, more often than not it comes back to haunt them. In many cases, more openness to questions allows a skilled president to make a better case to the public. This is especially true when the public is already asking tough questions.

Consider the nation's experience with George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003. Like so many presidents, Bush preferred to tell the world what needed to be done and shield himself from answering critics. This worked for him in the early days of the war when polls showed a majority of the public behind him. But that dramatically changed.

As the war dragged on and Americans grew angry about the death toll of American lives, Bush continued to stand above the debate refusing to acknowledge his errors or directly address mounting concerns.

Bush never seemed to trust the public or Congress in deciding to invade Iraq or how to prosecute a war that gradually became so unpopular that he became one of the lowest-rated presidents in the history of polling. In almost unilaterally making every decision regarding Iraq, Bush stood alone and isolated when it all went bad.

Failing to bring the public and Congress along for the ride can leave a president helpless if mistakes are made. When nearly everyone in the country is questioning their decisions, they ought to answer the questions with humility and honesty. Americans can be quite forgiving unless you stubbornly deny that anything is wrong."
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/01/bushs-trust-deficit.html

The Panetta Pick

TW: A couple of folks have asked about he Leon Panetta pick for CIA. I like it. A couple of Dem Senators getting hissy about the protocol of the pick does not bother me but Panetta is another strong player brought in by Obama. Long-time key player in the House for the Dems as well as Bill Clinton's former Chief of Staff, Panetta is positioned to bring reform to an agency that always seems to need some reform but rarely gets it. Craig "Curmudgeon" Crawford likes the pick as well.

From Crawford at Congressional Quarterly:
"Barack Obama might be quite wise to go with a CIA chief who is not an intelligence community careerist. Leon Panetta is no dummy even if he does lack spook background. And it could be a hint that the new president is paying attention to the experiences of predecessors like John Kennedy, who always regretted listening too closely to CIA pros in his first weeks at the White House...[TW: Crawford then goes into the whole Bay of Pigs fiasco]"
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/01/obamas-cia-choice-a-smart-move.html

TW: Also from Crawford who seems to be warming the BHO after alot of skepticism during the campaign:
"With each new announcement of Barack Obama's choices for those who will help him govern, most seem to reinforce a pattern that defines his style. Call it Competent Change.

The sometimes radical feel of his campaign -- the hip poster art, web savvy outreach and appeals to anti-war voters -- led many who watched Obama's operation, and probably a lot of his supporters, to think that Washington was in for a sweeping overhaul run by outsiders.
Instead, Obama's idea of change seems to be less dramatic than advertised. But that does not mean that the status quo will be maintained. He is building a team that brings competence and experience to the work of making a difference.

Changing Washington from the inside requires players who actually know how the place works."

Approving the People Not the Policies

From Craig Crawford:
"Yikes, not only does Karl Rove approve of Barack Obama's national security team. So does Dick Cheney. What is going on here? As a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama could not have been more scathing in his critiques of George W. Bush's foreign policy. But as president-elect, Obama appears to be installing a continuation of the incumbent's agenda. Wow, what happened to change? Or did Obama learn something in those secret intelligence briefings that perhaps the rest of us would be better off not knowing?"

TW: Crawford makes the huge leap that since Rove and Cheney express comfort with some of the personnel selected by Obama (Clinton, Gates, Jones) that Obama is now no longer for change. Crawford apparently did not read the Cheney interview. While Cheney expressed admiration for some of the Obama picks (but not say Susan Rice UN Amb.-nominee), Crawford ignored Cheney's continued dogmatic support for policies Obama strongly opposes (torture, Guantanamo, the need to have attacked Iraq originally). It is not the people, it is the policy. Again who has a greater chance of changing policy a bunch of doctrinaire doves or a group of moderates commanded by a progressive?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CHENEY_OBAMA?SITE=CONGRA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

From Craig "Curmudgeon" Crawford: Pigs, Dogs, Fish and Frogs

TW: This is why our politic process seems and in fact is so tedious

From Crawford:
"With pigs, pit bulls and fish-wrapping now all the rage on the presidential campaign trail, why not add scary frogs to the pile.
Long before Karl Rove put his name on the politics of distraction, a top Republican operative who specializes in electing weak candidates once explained to me how you derail a powerful foe who's winning on issues. He called it the ugly frog routine.
Ugly frogs in this game can be anything that opposing candidates do or say that, out of context, puts them on the defense.
"Stick that frog right in their face, shake it all around, and say, 'Here, look at this BIG UGLY FROG,'" the GOP consultant said. "Then, as they defend themselves and explain the context, real quick grab another ugly frog. Repeat often until they've spent most of the campaign reacting to your agenda."
John McCain's team has been playing the ugly frog routine against Barack Obama almost daily, starting with the Paris Hilton celebrity advertisement, forcing the Democrats to react to a barrage of silly attacks.
How do you fight the ugly frog routine, I asked this practitioner of the political dark arts. "Get your own frogs," he said. 'Stay off defense.'"

W. Bush and Iraq: Speaking of Wagging the Dog

From Craig Crawford (who btw is probably the biggest curmudgeon of them all, he really does not care for Obama)

"If Gen. David Petraeus is as smart as George W. Bush and John McCain say he is, why did the president overrule his top commander in Iraq? Today, Bush announced the withdrawal of 8,000 troops even though Petraeus argued to keep levels about the same until at least next June.
This is yet another opportunity to paraphrase the policeman in Casablanca who feigned surprise that gambling was going on in his jurisdiction. Politics? I'm shocked that politics might be at work in Bush's announcement.
What a curious time for Bush to finally side with those in his military circle who advised a troop reduction. Until now the president not only ignored such advice -- he got rid of those who said it too loudly.
The political value of this move is obvous. Even a modest reduction such as this helps McCain argue that we are winning in Iraq -- a theme repeated almost hourly at the Republican convention last week.
The real test of the political nature of Bush's announcement will be what he does with troop levels after Election Day."